tv Closing Bell With Maria Bartiromo CNBC January 10, 2013 4:00pm-5:00pm EST
kicks it off tomorrow. >> yeah. >> and a whole flood of them next week. is that the biggest catalyst that could push the market higher? >> not so sure because the bank stocks have been doing pretty well. i'm not so sure. i think the earnings will be pretty good but the market has probably priced it in so i'm not looking for a big surprise one way or the other other than the fact that maybe individual ones could surprise. >> what's the next catalyst then? >> you know, that's a good question. you know, you may get a little relief rally when you get through the next headwinds with the debt limit and the sequestration and put a band-aid on that, but i think it's just more of the same. kind of choppy, but the trend is up. >> first, let me say you were on the ferry yesterday in the crash in lower manhattan. thrilled and happy for you that you're alive and well. >> thank you. >> and our prayers go out to all those folks who were injured yesterday. >> absolutely? what are you watching on the floor. >> i'm going to watch gold. i think smart money, retail now selling it and smart money is
going to be buying gold. gold is reacting nicely. >> maria is going to pick up the ball in five seconds and run with "closing bell" at 4:00. >> and it is 4:00 on wall street. do you know where your money is? hi, everybody. welcome back to the "closing bell." i'm maria bartiromo on the floor of the new york stock exchange. this market rallying again. the s&p 500 getting set to close at a new five-year high. we're settling out with a rally on the street today as this market continues to want to go higher. up 80 points on the industrial average tonight finishing at the high of the afternoon, 13,470. volume picked up a bit today. the nasdaq composite also higher. also closing at high, up about 16 points on the nasdaq, s&p 500 up 11 points, three-quarters of 1%. the rally back on. s&p 500 closing at the highest level in five years once again. can the momentum continue? let's bring in ben pace from deutsche bank private wealth management and john from cfi
group and let me kick this off with you, john. what did you see on the trading desk, conviction there on the buy side? >> yeah. we saw a lot of the same that we saw at the beginning of the year. a lot of shorts actually still being squeezed. obviously the data last night out of china was actually exceptional. we saw exports and imports both off the charts. we also saw the eurozone benefiting as well with the draghi comments this morning, so i think that all in all a steady issue goes, "people" people expecting a dip. a lot of people expecting s&p earnings to be negative but yet the markets are still up. the fiscal cliff went okay, actually bad in my view. we had no entitlement cuts. only $650 billion in new revenue but yet again we're higher so there's a lot of other things going on that areng this market. vietnam made a new bull market high last night. we have china. >> right.
>> high, japan, topix and other bull market high. >> right. >> so there's many things to be positive about. >> a lot of positives. certainly a lot of positives. money on the sidelines. ben pace, there you go. you've got some challenges for the economy, and yet this market wants to go higher. how do you play is t and where's the best place to allocate capital? >> well, i think at these levels, maria, moving sideways for a while after that december 31st, january 2nd move, but it seems to have broken out a little bit the last couple of hours. looking to move up. we're still, you know, a little cautious around these levels because we are worrying about the quarterly earnings reports coming through, revenue growth and, of course, the drama in washington. in general constructive on equities. want to make sure you're positioned well. a little bit more of an overweight towards the emerging market space, pacific extra pants base in the u.s. and still constructive overall in equities. >> what about that, steven?
do you want to be owning stocks here, buying now, or have you missed much of the move at this point? we've got a good performance in 2012, and 2013 really off to the races. >> i think you missed some of the movement. valuations ultimately matter. i don't think you're looking at a stretch market, and i think it comes back more into a securities selection. valuations ultimately matter so look at those areas pulled become a little bit and use those dips to your advantage. i think asia is going to provide some upward draft to the markets. i think emerging markets, brazil and india will begin to stabilize but even in areas like europe north of the alps obviously you've got really global franchises selling at a discount, can you add to what we're looking at as a grinding global global recovery but it is a recovery. >> what are the sectors you want to own in 2013? >> right now a lot of dust has been cleared away from health care so the winners and losers are much easier to pick regardless of your politics on obama care. looking at energy very selectively and looking in
cyclicals and some areas of consumer discretionaries. there may not be as much pop off the bet there but looking at global credit markets as well, adding to that yield advantage that may be available there, but you'll have to pick better stocks and better bonds. >> kenny, what are you seeing? >> i'm seeing, maria, that we've hit the top. struggled with 1472. it is a high and feels bullish but in the short term we're going to hit some resistance here. i would suspect the market will back off. a couple of issues in front of us at the end of the month. i suspect if there's any sense at all that they are not going to compromise or negotiate you'll see the market come right back in. that being said i would use that, any weakness opportunity to jump right back in because i do think my sense is that the market wants to go higher this year, want to go higher this year. our economy is stabilizing. economies around the world are stabilizing so i think it's a good year. >> where are you seeing the conviction on the buy side? what sectors? >> i still think, you know, obviously financials in housing are basically intertwained,
right, so as housing goes, financials go and vice verse arnts housing is obviously leading the financials higher. we haven't even begun to talk about asset management, and the ability to -- we saw legg mason on speculation that they may be taken private. >> they denied, that right? >> to night it. >> but bank of america has an an asset on their books called merrill lynch, right, so once people move money out of bonds, the trillions of dollars parked in cash and bonds back into equities, we haven't even begun to see any of that. obviously we're positive on asset managers as well as the buy side. in terms of housing, we -- we saw in the numbers today construction and jolts actually ramped up again. so we're seeing construction hiring and pickup sales going very, very well, so i think that even the consumer, a lot of pent-up demand in terms of leisuring right, everybody has basically been home, hasn't gone on vacation and paying down
credit and eventually that will change as well. >> who wants to jump in there? >> no, no, i was saying hello to scott. >> saying hello to scott. that's good. >> so in terms of the challenges, we've got the debt ceiling debate coming. i guess my question is are we going to be able to get in this market at better levels? do i want to wait and take to the sidelines and wait for a nice decline to actually buy because it definitely does feel like this market wants to go up. do i want to go in now or wait for a selloff? >> when the market pulls back a little bit, politicians are committed to provide volatility and uncertainty in this market. europe, experts at it and americans are learning pretty quickly in washington so as we move into the policy turmoil opportunities you'll get a chance to get in from a valuation perspective, but longer term as americans, this is the first time we've ever had a dialogue about how to actually create a fiscally stable country so we'll get better at this as it goes. if i want to be modestly bullish it's great that we're having
this debate because 10, 15, 20 years from now we'll look at a more stable financial situation. >> that being said, i think the market if it pulls back, i don't suspect it will pull back very much so people should be aware if they want to pull back pull back on weakness because in the end the market is going to do much better. >> you snooze, you lose. >>(1) 500 locking in. michelle caruso-cabrera looking in. >> markets ending the day on a good note. best buy reported same-store sales tomorrow to morgan stanley, both higher on news that the hedge fund third point have taken equity positions and urban outfitters, reporting 9% jump in holiday same-store sales. hasbro is also in the green. legg mason jumping on a reuters report that the financial company turned down private investment and tiffany
disappointed investors with holiday sales, basically they were flat lower. nat gas company down and monster beverage, pepco holdings falling today. walmart hit today by news that its ceo michael duke received a letter from two members of congress who want him to answer more questions about what we knew and when related to the mexico bribery scandal in mexico. back to you. >> much more ahead in the "closing bell." james grant joins us to talk about the debt ceiling and a lot more. will the taxman hurt charities? i'll talk with a member of the a non-profit about why she's so concerned. later on, a million dollar murder mystery with more twists than a "murder, she wrote" investigation. a million dollar lottery winner was poisoned to death after he won. details coming up.
a share want to exclude a number offitens that the company is taking t.1.09 a share. three cents ahead of estimates. revenues in line at $8.1 billion. the other important piece of news here aexpress is undergoing a restrurk touring, taking a restructuring charge which is one of the three taking in the quarter. part of that will cover the cost of severance payments related to 5400 jobs being eliminated in the quarter. those job reductions taking place across seniority levels, businesses as well as staff groups with the largest reduction. according to american express coming in the travel business which operates in an industry. it says it is being fundamental reinvented. so, again, just to give you an idea, american express pre-announcing earnings, excluding items three cents ahead of revenues. revenues in line with estimates at $8.1 billion. the company also announcing a restructuring that involves 5,400 job cuts. the company does plan to do a full earnings release next week
as expected but, again, the pre-announcement coming because of the restructuring. >> the major averages on a two-day winning streak and the s&p 500 at a fresh five-year high. over to bob pisani? >> spending on amex, one of the reasons stocks are moving up in the after hours. take a look at the major sectors. s&p, heard from maria, five-year high, but there's more there. russell 2000, another historic high and mid-cap, historic high. take a look at the banks, ugly day yesterday. much better today. wells fargo kicks off earnings for the banks tomorrow. a three-month high. heavy volume today. bank of america good. citigroup, jpmorgan chase, right near a 52-week high as well. techs, kind of an anchor throughout the day, big bowl, terrible move at the open. apple finally went down into positive territory. seagate great but ended to the downsaid. aeropostale lower guidance.
that's been a mess all year. american eagle afirmed the guidance but this stock is still to the downsize. ascena, the old dress barn, to the down side and finally, maria, chinese export numbers, much stronger than expected. we saw a lot of activity in the china etf. there's the fxi that's right near a new 52-week high. back to you. >> thanks so much. as part of the debt ceiling debate the trillion dollar coin is being tossed around as a way to avoid any standoff between the two sides. the idea is that the treasury company mint the coin, deposit it at the federal reserve so that the government can pay its bills, but noted economist jim grant thinks it's a bad idea. does have his own solutions to this looming crisis. jim grant joins us from grant interest rate observer. great to see you. happy new year. thanks for joining us once again. you don't think this trillion dollar coin is the answer. >> that is an urban legend. >> yeah. >> okay. what we need to do i think, first of all, is to speak
clearly about this problem we this, this debt problem. for example, secretary of the treasury is not the secretary of the treasury. it is secretary of the debt. there are being no net treasurer in the treasury so we must be clear about that. we use the word trillion. $1 trillion is a million million. $1 trillion is an incomprehensible number we throw around and it numbs us, and we must speak of it in a weight. so $1 trillion is 22 million pounds of 100 bills. 16 trillion is 360 million pounds of $100 bills. that's just to set the table. >> unbelievable. >> and we have a chart here that shows the federal debt limit in the trillions, above 16 trillion. >> the first trillion took 64 years to accomplish. that was 1981. >> okay. that is when interest rates, as you know, you don't remember, you weren't around or you were in kindergarten. >> yeah. >> 1981, they were 15%, so the
constraints on borrowing used to be interest rates and the gold feature of the dollar. you could exchange $35 for an ounce of gold. there was only so much gold and so many dollars. we have neither the gold covering the dollar nor do we have interest rates constraining us. the only thing remaining to constrain us is some sort of civil discussion, enew jersey rat discussion about the debt, and the debt is astounding, and i feel that with -- with so much of this discussion about trillions, people don't really grasp what it means. >> no, they don't, and i think the average person out there certainly does not understand the downside to what we're talking about and the risks. >> right. >> so, you know, since 30 careers or so, the debt has increased twice as fast as federal receipts. you know, the united states is truly submerging -- it's a great country. seemingly indestructible as a
country, but our fiscal problems are enormous, and they are -- they are at rock bottom a monetary problem. when the federal reserve, that is to -- actually call it by its name. when the bureau of money materialization, don't call it a central bank, it's the bureau of money printing. >> okay. >> when the fed can materialize dollars on a computer screen, that is no constraint either so what we have is a physical problem but the underlying problem is monetary. >> before i ask you for some solutions and what might work, did you find any encouragement in the nominating of jack lew to this very important post of treasury secretary today? >> he does not remind me of alexander hamilton. >> that's all you're going to say? >> that's all i'm going to say. i'll give him a chance to be alexander hamilton. >> but why not? >>y in secretary of the debt would be to, first of all, talk in english in our problems and
secondly to understand that the -- the revenues put nort so far have been all political and rhetorical, and what we want is the stern stuff of a monastery -- a monetary approach. we want a dollar in exchange for something tangible. and that's gold bouillon. we've not had that for the past -- well, since 1971, about 0-odd years, and what we need is at least a discussion about the nature of our monetary problem that really is a fundamental source of our fiscal problem. >> why would that work going back to gold bouillon? >> because there's only so much gold and can only be so many dollars. >> there's a limited amount, a limited supply. >> you don't have to rely on the goodwill of our politicians to limit their spending because they are constrained by the -- by the nature of our monetary material. now, when president obama -- when senator obama in 2006
bewailed the debt, he voted against the debt ceiling going up in 2006. >> and now he wants unlimited. >> he says -- we rely on foerns to pay our bills. foreigners in the shape of central banks and -- and ex-checkiers own $1.5 trillion of our treasuries and mortgages, $1.5 trillion at 2006. today it's almost twice as much. so it -- it is utterly out of control, but for reasons that all too few people understand. it's not about the $1 trillion coin, though it is an interesting illusion to what is going on with the problem. the problem is the nature of our money. >> and we're not explaining this. we're not speaking english about this. let me get your take on when the markets might start figuring this out and react to it. >> we know rates will be for a long time. bernanke has told us, mario draghi, interest rates will be at rock bottom levels since
2015. >> money market rates will be there if they are true to what they are laying out but we don't know where bond yields will be here. >> a chart here of 30-year treasury yields on the federal debt ceiling. when would you expect these markets to start reacting? >> five years ago. >> and see a spike? >> five years ago. >> so it can happen any day. >> yeah. >> is there a catalyst that you look at that says, okay, the market will figure out that we can't afford any of this and can't pay our bills? >> the currency faith-based, the debt creole preposterous and the language is -- it is bent, and it does numb us as a body politic to the truth, so it seems to me that the bond market begins to encounter problems when people begin to focus on the meek of the word trillion. when they focus on the meaning of the reserve currency franchise that has that allows us to pay our bills and the dollars we materialize on a computer screen, when people continue our finances in down to
earth, real sensitive ways -- >> yeah. >> i think they will be dema demanding fewer treasuries. >> expecting a big fight in the coming weeks? >> the big debt that we have a good political prout brawl with the monetary problem. there ought to be a fight. >> we'll be watching. i'm waiting for the markets to react, but you're right. haven't seen it yet. >> always nice to have you on the program. thanks so much. jim grant, founder and editor of grant's interest rate observer. forget the boys' club on wall street. a new study shows female-managed hedge funds are outperforming the rest of the bis. i'll speak to one woman and why she says men are better at trading than men. and a million dollar lottery winner dead from cyanide. a family battles for the cash. now the wife has lawyered up. stick around. this one is getting bigger and bigg bigger. about once a month.
last time i was at a gas station was about...i would say... two months ago. i very rarely put gas in my chevy volt. i go to the gas station such a small amount that i forget how to put gas in my car. [ male announcer ] and it's not just these owners giving the volt high praise. volt received the j.d. power and associates appeal award two years in a row. ♪
welcome back. a little situation happening with american express. want to show you the chart in the extended hours. company reported earnings. expecting earnings next week. they reported early. the company is reporting for the fourth quarter $1.09 a share versus an estimate of 1.06. revenue coming in at 8.1 billion versus an estimate of 8.12 billion. doing a conference call tonight at 5:00 p.m. eastern, and look at that move in the stock in the extended action. real action, as you see. it spiked and then came off of
the highs. looking at a move in amex ahead of the conference call which is taking place in about 35 minutes. we'll be watching that, any news coming out of it. meanwhile female hedge fund managers earn better returns than the broader hedge fund index, according to a new report from rothstein cash. female hedge fund managers had net returns of 9 boston through the third quarter of last year. that beat the broader hedge fund index returns of 2.7% in the same period. kelly easterling is with me and helped compile the report and joins me now to look at this. good you have to on the program. >> thanks. good to be here. >> what's behind this? did your study look at women who directly manage funds, or are they also including ceos? women who are managing the firms? are these the active managers, the women? what did the study look at. >> it absolutely is the women who are managing. women-managed and women-owned so we're looking at women who will be portfolio managers as well as women who would be specifically women-owned funds. >> so how would you characterize
it? i mean, is there evidence that female hedge fund managers are actually better managers than male hedge fund managers? >> we actually put together an index for the first time which shows 66 or 67 women managers, and as you said it showed that they outperformed their male counterparts by 6.6 percentage points through september of 2012. >> now i know some of this is a generalization. you know, you hear a lot about women versus men, and some people like to say women are a little more conservative, and they are longer-term thinking. some of that is a generalization, but what would you attribute to this? what do you attribute that we are looking at these numbers, that women are better manageers? >> two things that we noted as part of the report. firstly a lot of psychological evidence that women tend to be slightly risk averse and looking at the market and the volatility, it very well may be women, if true, slightly less risk averse may be better managers. and secondly, women managers have a tendency to run smaller
pools of capital so it may as well be that their ability to be in and out of the markets are more nimble and may be driving those returns. >> so the smaller the pool of capital enabls you to move around much faster and be more nimble. >> absolutely. >> good point. do you think females are making inroads in managing money? where are we say compared to ten years ago? >> i think we're slowly making inroads and talked about it in the survey. when you look at it, the percentage of women in ceo and cio positions are really only 20% so we've made inroads but not as quickly as we probably wished there were but there's some inroads being made. in order to continue there has to be women in those positions and managing the money and in the ceo and cio roles of their firm. >> how did they do it? your data resulted in these results for the first quarter of 2012. can you pinpoint what they did to have these verdict as i tonight have a better performance than their male counterparts?
did they just get the market right as opposed to others? what did they do better? >> you know, it actually was for both the nine months and into 2012. we went back and looked for a five-year period. yes, 6.6% but also over a five-year period. wasn't solely that piece. won if we specifically know what they did but it's a ground breaking peace. research done in the past with minority owned funds and this is the first time we've looked at them to see how they have involv perform. >> what about the investor class? is there the same can i verseification you might see with a male manager? >> i think it's hard to say but at the end of the day everybody cares about alpha and everybody
cares about generating those excessive returns, so at the end of the kay i think that there's probably women managers who say, you know -- they say that women managers have more money from family offices, so i don't know if that can be inferred, but i think at the end of the day investors want returns, and so i don't think it necessarily, you know, impacts who is in the fund. >> yeah, it's funny. sometimes when people say women versus men. i always think that's just marketing. we all want to make money. >> exactly. >> we all want alpha and that's the bottom line. >> if we're seeing women outperform their male counterparts by 6.6%, if we're asking, you know, portfolio managers and fund to funds and endowments and institutional investments to go out and make investments, maybe that's a component, you know, the diversification of what they are looking for if women-owned managers are making more money for their investors than they are in other situations. >> a great point. overall, how would you characterize hedge funds today because there was a real debate going on where active managers were underperforming the indexes and hedge funds were -- the fees
were way too high. how would you characterize what's going on in the business today in terms their own health and vibrancy, men or women? >> let's see. so the report that we just put out is actually with women in venture capital, private equity and hedge funds. the index specifically was about hedge funds but we're talking about women in all three of those industries and what they are saying is portfolio returns and opportunities are even going to be better in 2003 than they were in 2012 so there's a lot of optimism of looking into the future which is great. >> which is great. >> absolutely. >> good you have to on the program. >> good stuff. kelly easterling joining us here. the rothstein cat principal. up next, charitable deduction donations phasing out as a result of congress' tax deal. now non-profits are bracing for the impact. the head of a non-profit will speak to me about the challenges. also ahead, recreational marian
label. a new twist in the murder kiss of a lottery winner. wait until what investigators have uncovered now. stay with us on that. until it is fully healed, bt possibly several months. so, if the duck isn't able to work, how will he pay for his living expenses? aflac. like his rent and car payments? aflac. what about gas and groceries? aflac. cell phone? aflac, but i doubt he'll be using his phone for quite a while cause like i said, he has a fractured beak. [ male announcer ] send the aflac duck a get-well card at getwellduck.com. [ male announcer ] how do you turn an entrepreneur's dream... ♪ into a scooter that talks to the cloud? ♪ or turn 30-million artifacts...
♪ into a high-tech masterpiece? ♪ whatever your business challenge, dell has the technology and services to help you solve it. [ male announcer ] how could switchgrass in argentina, change engineering in dubai, aluminum production in south africa, and the aerospace industry in the u.s.? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing.
welcome back. charities across america are scrambling to overcome a new tax hurdle imposed by the fiscal cliff agreement. forget the rate hike on those above $400,000 in annual income. there's a less publicized provision that phases out deductions for folks making $250,000 or couples making $300,000. now the charitable giving community is fearing that this will take a major bite out of support for worthy causes and organizations. joining me now is diana avis, president and ceo of independent sector, a network of non-profits. thanks for joining us. >> happy to be here. >> first lay out playing field for us. give us an example of how this provision would affect a couple making $400,000. >> a little complicated but i'll do my best. let's say there's a couple that makes $400,000. and then what happens is that
the difference between the 300, the adjusted gross income from at which point it kicks in, say, for example, of that 400,000, the couple decides to give $30,000 -- $30,000 to charities of the 100,000. when you add up the deduction it ends up that in the end it's only about $900 that they can't count as part of their deduction, so i think that the big problem here is not the amount, but it's the deep concern that lawmakers and the president are looking at the charitable sector for sources of income to pay for debts and other kinds of things when in fact we want the charitable deduction and all tax incentives to incentivize people to give more to charity? would you say that the impact on high earners is significant, and do you think this is going to
lead to those people pulling back in terms of their charitable giving? >> higher earners, as you know, with the rate now 39.6, if you add that with piece it could have an effect but if in fact the charitable deduction remains at 39.6 or the cap on charitable deductions for those high income earners or those over 400,000, that means they will give to charity more. the urban institute estimates that they are likely to give something like over $3 billion, $3.5 billion to charity, so that could offset the loss. i think at least the urban institute thinks that the deduction is going to be negligible. i think that the reason the charitable sector is so upset that it feels almost like a punch in the stomach. we work so hard to make sure that the charitable deduction was out of these debates, and suddenly comes this thing from
nowhere, that's very upsetting, and also we know in the next round we're going to be facing front and center a discussion about the charitable deduction again. >> yeah. sort of slipped through the cracks, didn't it. no one is talking about it, and yet it has a big impact. this really isn't a cap on deductible amounts. you're worried that it's going to lead to that. >> it could, because the paes amendment does an overall on income and then from that they look at part of what they can deduct. i don't know that the person who earns -- a family earns 400,000 will give $30,000 but if that adds up to 900 they can't cut out of $30,000, i don't think it will substantially affect their gig, but there's a sense they will wait and see and withhold their gifts until they know what congress is going to be doing and the white house is going to be doing with the deduction. i must say to you -- just one other thing. i met just yet with a couple of people with some senior leaders on the republican side on the hill, an they have made clear to
us at this point that they have no intention of having any rate increases, including putting on the table any packages relative to deductions, so their sense is from their side that only tends to touch this issue. >> well, they -- i understand that, but a lot of people said they didn't expect to see higher taxes without any spending cuts and in fact we got higher taxes and no spending cuts at the end of 2012 with the fiscal cliff deal. >> but i would be very happy if the administration would stop with that intention as well. if we had both sides saying we can take the charitable deduction off the table. it's not a deduction but an incentive to commit and think it has no place in this debate and there will be deep cuts to the programs. if we're going to have all the cuts and we're going to limit incentives, how are these organizations going to provide the services that we all want them to to make our communities bet her. >> we'll be watching this. an important story. thanks very much.
>> thanks. >> we appreciate it. diane aviv, president of independent sectors, a network of non-profits. coming up, this lottery winner lost it all. a $1 million jackpot winner died of poisoning one day after claiming the prize. our robert frank with the developments and high hopes with washington stayed and colorado legalizing recreational marijuana. medbox is hoping its vending machines will join us. their ceo joins us on the other side of this break. back in a moment. nothing. are you stealing our daughter's school supplies and taking them to work? no, i was just looking for my stapler and my... this thing. i save money by using fedex ground and buy my own supplies. that's a great idea. i'm going to go... we got clients in today. [ male announcer ] save on ground shipping at fedex office. ♪
welcome back. authorities uncover new information in the murder case of a million dollar lottery winner. our wealth editor robert frank with the latest developments. robert? >> reporter: authorities in chicago are preparing to exhume the body of urooj khan, the lottery winner who scratched off a million dollar ticket back in july. he was poisoned by cyanide and authorities want a full autopsy as part of this criminal investigation. investigators have searched the home he shared with his wife. detectives have interviewed her for more than four hours. this could be routine. she says he had nothing to do with his death, fell ill shortly after they had dinner together but court papers show there's a family dispute now over khan's assets which total around $1.2 million. he didn't have a will so his estate would pass legally to his wife and daughter but khan's
siblings say the daughter is being shut out, and they are now trying to become their legal guardian. a millionaire murder mystery that's yet to be solved and we'll continue to follow this fascinating story. >> really unbelievable, and a lot more to come. thank you very much, robert frank. so from cyanide to marijuana, a startling chart. the stock of a company called medbox that dispenses medication based on biometric identification including medical mayor wan avrnlt since the elections that had favorable results in different states to legalize marijuana the stock has gone on a wild ride topping over $200 a share. we'd like to warn investors and viewers that while the company has a $1 billion market capitalization the shares outstanding for public trading known as the float, it's very small. this stock is traded over the counter. it's incredibly volatile sass always the case here on cnbc. do your homework before ever considering buying a stock and know how small the float is the
medbox show is with me exclusively. bruce, even your founder has cautioned investors about the stock price before, correct? >> that is correct. maria, thank you very much. it is a pleasure and honor to be on your show and thank you for giving that valid and warning to our investors, appreciate that. >> sure. walk me through how this works. you've got vending machines that sell marijuana. >> technically they are not vending machines. what we do is we provide the safest most secure, most legally complaint way to store, dispense and inventory control prescription pharmaceuticals, including medical marijuana, and these devices are actually behind the counter in dispensaries, and so it's a very safe, secure, highly regulated environment that we operate in. >> okay. so 18 states have now passed medical marijuana laws. 18 states, so you -- you operate -- you operate already in california.
you operate in canada. you've got dispensers coming to market in arizona in a matter of weeks. >> correct. >> what when are you likely to break into the remaining states? what's the plan for growth? >> that's a very good question because we are not just about medical marijuana. our technology crosses many boundaries in the traditional pharmacy retailing business, whether it's retail pharmacies, institutional pharmacy plays, doctor offices, hospice, long-term care, so our solution really is very broad scope and has a tremendous value proposition in traditional pharmacy and in traditional health care. in terms of medical marijuana we are on a state-by-state awareness, put if in aware ney. every state sen acting its own laws and regulations so we're currently enacting the rules in recently passed state like connecticut and massachusetts. >> so washington and colorado already passed laws on the use
of recreational marijuana. >> correct. >> how are you going to break that and get into the recreational marijuana space? >> part of the technology that we provide to the public and for people that want to get into the business, we also have a consulting side, so anybody that is interested in opening up dispensaries or retail operation will also contact us and we'll help them walk through the application process as well as provide technology to them, and just like in connecticut and massachusetts the states of colorado and the states of washington are preparing their rules and regulations on how they are going to operate now the recreational marijuana. >> so how does your firm make money? are you actually providing the marijuana? are you a distributor for the marijuana? >> no. we do not derive any revenues from the sale or transfer of the medical marijuana. we are merely technology and service providers. we are compared to companies that sold pick axes and shovels during the gold rush.
we sell technology and services through the green rush. >> your stock got another boost that you do have an interest in acquiring inside and outside the marijuana industry so what kinds offing a significances are you looking to make? >> services and technology-based companies, not only in the medical marijuana industry but in the traditional pharmacy industry as well. we have some tremendous acquisitions in the pipeline, and i -- i hope this interview is one of many because the technology that we're going to be bringing to market that we have in the pipeline, that we're going to deploy from coast to coast is going to make a huge difference, huge difference in the daily lives of everybody in this country, millions of people. we're going to make it safer, more secure, more complaint and most importantly we'll offer more convenience to the average everyday citizens who is acquiring their prescription medications or medical marijuana. >> how are you going to do that. you've only got $1 million of cash on the balance sheet, right? >> that is correct. this quarter, if not next month,
we will be filing to become a fully reporting company, and we will be seeking probably a capital infusion. >> and where will you get that capital infusion, private equity, private company? where are you looking to get that? >> what i can tell you is i got back from the jpm health care conference and some of the people say they missed you and look forward to seeing you again next year, and we were completely overwhelmed. we were very warmly welcomed. i took twice the amount of meetings that i expected to take at the jpm conference, jpmorgan health care conference in san francisco, and so how we're going to structure the capital infusion is yet to be determined. >> all right. we will leave it there, and thank you for that. jpmorgan health care conference is a great one, and we're -- i'm sorry to miss it. thanks very much. good to have you on the program. we'll be watching your company as it evolves. >> thank you so much, maria. >> see you soon. let's get to michelle
caruso-cabrera who has breaking news on boeing. >> boeing says anticipated u.s. defense budget cuts likely will mean less demand for a variety of boeing products. you don't see a big move in stocks after hours. maybe this was not unanticipated, considering we know what's going to happen with the sequester. a lot of pressure on defense spending regardless of how the outcome is going to be. once again reuters says anticipated u.s. defense cuts will likely mean less demand for a variety of boeing products. >> thanks very much. up next, friday morning movers. next is your money on the line? don't miss it. stay with us. [ male announcer ] staples is the number-one
along with simir samana and michael james. good to see you, gentlemen. thank you for joining us. eric, we kick things off with you. what are you watching for? >> well, we're going to be focused on the upcoming earnings season, which will be interesting given all the cross currents out there. tomorrow morning, wells fargo will be out, an important proxy for the financials, which have been a recent leadership group. and then we will also take a look at some of the regional banks off that, like a viewpoint financial. we're going to pay attention to some of the retailers and consumer stocks, what they may or may not preannounce ahead of some of the consumer conferences that are going to take place next week. >> all right, leave it there. samir, you are up. what are you looking at tomorrow? >> it will be quiet on the economic front, but we do have trade data out in the u.s. industry from duction productio coming out. looking at earnings, too, to see what effect sandy, the debt
ceiling, the fiscal cliff debates, what effect that's had on consumer behavior and lastly, we'd say we remain positive, but the markets have had a bit of a run here, we would expect a little bit of a breather. one area you could see catchup is gold and precious metals. >> all right, we've seen a hit there recently. michael, you're at the wheel. 30 seconds on the clock. >> keeping a close eye on facebook. it was obviously the post eer child for social media stocks last year. stock broke over 30 yesterday, 31 today. a lot of enthusiasm. keep a close eye on it. we're bullish on it longer term. second thing is herbalife, today was day two of the jihad between bill ackman and the company. we maintain a bullish stance. it's been a wild ride. still think it goes higher. last one is consumer stocks. kind of a mixed bag for holiday names today. we continue to have a bullish
stance. >> all right. we will leave it there. gentlemen, thank you very much. we'll be watching all of those stories. hope to see you soon. check back with you soon. thank you, guys. up next, my thoughts on the implications of president obama's treasury secretarylew. stick around. boxes by the cur. make you a target for thieves? or that dog bites account for a third of all home liability claims? what if you didn't know that one in seven drivers is uninsured? and that grease fires have to be smothered? the more you know, the better you can plan for whats ahead. get smarter about your insurance. ♪ we are farmers bum - pa - dum, bum - bum - bum - bum ♪ i am probably going to the gas station about once a month. last time i was at a gas station was about...i would say... two months ago. i very rarely put gas in my chevy volt. i go to the gas station such a small amount that i forget how to put gas in my car.
and finally tonight, my observation on today's nomination of jack lew to replace tim geithner as the new treasury secretary. it's important to look at this in context of what it may mean for the debate on spending cuts as we approach this debt ceiling limit and the fight that is ensuing. tim get near is leaving january 25th. that means lew will be the main point person for this debt ceiling drama. so, what does this mean ahead of what is likely to be another hard fight? perhaps the best clues for that are in an op-ed from two years ago from jack lew. inis entitled "the easy cuts are behind us." the piece absolutely advocates getting out of our debt and getting the debt and deficit under control. but it does so by discussing some cuts in defense and then examples of scaling back things like something called the great lakes restoration initiative. not eliminating it, just cutting it by maybe a quarter of its present cost. a sav